So good!
--
Lots of spoilers below! Beware, those who haven't watched Season 2 yet.
So good!
--
Lots of spoilers below! Beware, those who haven't watched Season 2 yet.
Yeah... and so much worth talking about... but... spoilers. :(
I was afraid to open this thread since I'm only 5 ep into season 2, so I'll add a no spoilers tag to the title.
But yeah, god damn.
finished it. writers have been making all the right decisions, and i think in a way that is a step above every other show, even breaking bad. examples in white
killing zoey and doug was perfect. the introductions of seth and the sunny in philly guy were perfect in a sort of macguffin and organic way. the fact that the show doesn't need blood for its intrigue is huuuuuuge. so far every other top show has to resolve a lot of conflict with bloodshed, but HoC only seems to do that to resolve dragging points that need to go away, not significant plot arcs.
Damn, it wuggy... no season 2 spoilers... please... not even in white... some of us have not watched the entire 2nd season... and have next to no self-control when it comes to revealing something barely hidden.
Season 1
***
Ominous bassline signifies nothing.
|: doo dee doo dee doo dedodee :|
At one point there's the ominous bassline and no dialogue for [a creepy eternity] while someone (Remy?) placidly delivers flowers to the Underwood home.
What were they thinking?
Why is Francis always breaking the 4th wall and talking to us/the camera?
This is so annoying to me. It completely breaks my immersion in this story... in a way that Ferris Beuller never did.
Is there anyone who thinks this is both A) compelling to the story in an important way and B) the most compelling device to achieve that end?
Wuf, you have no honor. I didn't know the second thing. Shit says NO SEASON TWO SPOILERS.
Kinda didn't like how aggressive S2 gets. I like subtle FU moves best.
Since when do people not realize that "in white" means spoilers
What does the thread title say? You fail at interwebbing.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I'm sorry for spoiling you. My defense is that we always do spoilers in white and this thread is about s2. Granted, GMML's title alteration is misleading. FWIW, it isn't that big a spoiler and is very projected in the writing.
use the spoiler tag you noob.
Spoiler:hi, i'm wuggywuf
[*spoiler]hi, i'm wuggywuf[/*spoiler]
remove the *
i'd update it myself but not even going to chance accidentally reading it.
watching this show and going to work might get you fired
the way they release their season, all in one go, makes it very difficult to discuss. other shows have 1 episode per week so you can discuss the current point of the season, but with this, you could be anywhere. i do like the way HOC does it though, and if i wasn't all old now with responsibilities, i'd have watched them all when it came out.
on episode 7 now. so far i'm not exactly sure where the plot is going. i have a few general ideas but nothing specific.
yeah the "no spoilers" thing basically makes it undiscussable. best to just not open thread until after having watched. then we say our piece and yadda
It's a Shakespearean device termed an aside!! It shows his inner dialogue as well as his inner ego which is quite inflated. I think it's perfect for his inflated persona!!!! Love him in a sick demented way!!Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Also, this was done in the original House of Cards series, also available on Netflix. I only started watching it recently but it seems there are more than a few tips of the hat to the '90s series in the current one. Even the main character's first name is Francis. And the phrase "You may think that, (name), but I couldn't possibly comment." gets repeated ad nauseum.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlowJoe
So, Molly Parker, amirite?
:drool:Quote:
Originally Posted by BennyLaRue
she looks great in a dress
She's Canadian.
You're Canadian
You guys are being complete spazzes to wuf. White instead of spoiler tags makes no sense, but if you are mad because you have no self control, who should you honestly be mad at?
If we can't discuss s02 in spoiler tags, then why does this thread exist?
The most logical way to proceed is to use spoiler tags for a given amount of time.. say until the end of March. Then if the thread is still going we can edit the title and discuss in the open. Otherwise we should just lock the thread.
i didnt even check to see if this forum had gotten spoiler tags yet. in white has always been the ftr time-honored way
So good.
Though, it reminds me why I don't really care about fiction. It's all a game of what happens next over and over.
Totally agree. My only thought is if we have a no spoilers rule up to episode X until otherwise posted by OP. So at this point, OP could say, "From now on, I'm allowing episode 1 spoilers." and we'd know to stop reading at this point if we don't want those spoilers. After some suitable time, as determined by OP, he could open it up to episode 2 spoilers. This sucks because if you have a comment from episode 1 when the thread is on episode 2, then your post and any replies shows up in the ep. 2 section, which you're not up to..Quote:
Originally Posted by givememyleg
I don't think this really works.
It's just a thought. I agree that the "no spoilers" thing is breaking this thread.
I was half joking with the 'no self-control' point I made. I would only ever seriously blame myself for my own ('tarded) choices.
Explaining what an aside is does not answer my question. I am a fan of Shakespeare; I know what an aside is, and have memorized a few of the more famous asides: Hamlet's "to be or not to be" contemplation, Shylock's "Hath not a Jew ...?" defense, Puck's "If we shadows have offended" epilogue.
I even acknowledged an appreciation of the aside in other contexts, a la Ferris Bueller.
Again:
Is there anyone who thinks this is both A) compelling to the story in an important way and B) the most compelling device to achieve that end?
I don't believe the answer is as simple as, "They did it in the British version, so we copied it." There is always a reason for everything on the screen. Someone's mind decided to put it there. As I've been taught, the aside is widely held by literary types to be a distracting motif, akin to a narrator, and considered to be lazy writing by writers, themselves.
I, personally, don't see a benefit this motif brings to the story, and I'm curious if anyone does. If someone can explain to me why they honestly appreciate it... maybe I will learn to appreciate it, too.
I'm up to episode 7 on HoC.
I really enjoy the asides, especially when he just glances at you and leaves you to fill in for him.
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Internal monologue helps with exposition.
edit Or stylized internal monologue, if you like. The point is probably that it's the only time when you can trust he's not being two or three faced.
Just finished watching SOA Season6 (yesterday) & with that & Olympics now over ( sigh ) me & the wife are looking for another series to watch. Sounds like this one will be our choice (actually from finding this thread).
Yeah, I think this is the best reasoning for it. Forcing cardboard cut out characters into the narrative just so that we can get some exposition-- that's weak writing. Breaking the fourth wall to allow us a window into Francis' strategic machinations allows the show to be kept tight.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Also, Francis is the type of person who you know isn't a good person, but they are so good at it, so likely to be the winning horse, that it feels good to be on their team. The asides put us on his team. We don't need to be able to relate to Francis, we just need him to be charismatic, winning, and to think highly enough of us to occasionally trust us with a tid-bit of his master plan.
You imagine you're on a team with Francis? You sympathize with and root for him? You vicariously share in his successes and failures?
I get it, and I guess I'm the weird one, but there is no one on HoC that really inspires my sympathy.
The closest would be maybe Rachel... but even she's a down-on-her-luck prostitute, so I have a bit of sympathy, even a little empathy... but still not feeling like I'm on her team... I guess I am in the sense that I don't want her to get hurt... but she's nowhere near a main character.
Spoiler: S2E1
Spoiler:When Frank pushed Zooey in front of the subway car, I was fascinated and excited... not upset or distraught... and I certainly didn't put myself in the position of Frank. It was exciting because it was unexpected and if the writers were willing to kill off a main character in the first episode of the season, then that is a good harbinger of them taking chances with the script, and looking to progress the story, instead of ride the positive stagnation.
I'm on a team with Lisa. She's weird-hot, like a taller Ellie Kemper.
TIL the actress that plays Vasquez actually has Indian ancestry. Lol-ywood.
frank has balls, cant help respect that
I have balls. Do you respect me?
Are your balls big enough to kill? If yes, then yes!
They kill millions of children every day, sometimes twice. Never three times any more - I have SOME self control.Quote:
Originally Posted by !Luck
I don't sympathize with Frank. Sometimes I root for him-- but sometimes I actively root against his evil ways. That's what I'm trying to explain to you. It's like being a smaller kid who's befriended by the bully. It feels good to be empowered, even if only by proxy, and when the bully picks on a popular kid who was dismissive of you, it's both thrilling and satisfying. However, to keep your seat at the table, you have to take the good with the ugly, you have to stand by while he indiscriminately picks on kids who don't deserve it. You may even feel compelled to cheer him on as he does it, while inside you feel physically ill for being a part of his bullying.
It's an incredibly complex relationship, one which many writing teams would struggle to form in a traditional narrative. Yet the writers for HoC, in my opinion, have successfully formed it between a villainous character and the audience through these asides.
He's a bad guy, the audience knows he's a bad guy, but the audience has no choice but to root for him because the story is shown from his perspective, he has many qualities that are considered redeeming for most people, and the audience gets the sense that he deserves to get his way since he's smarter than everybody else.
The show is fantastic in all the ways shows should be. Some of the problems others have, like how characters are introduced or eliminated, are actually strengths
i'm an idiot who put spoilers in this thread without the tag.
Not even the decency to use a spoiler tag... much less a white font...
Spoiler:Besides, it was epic. The more "useful" her character, the more epic the removal.
I think its definitely a flawed show, nowhere near GOAT status, but I enjoyed it. I think its an extremely good and well thought out plot but the characters suck. Their actions are motivated by the plot, not by themselves. They just feel really blocky and not well thought-out.
That said, the plot is really really good. I really like how every little minor character or prop gets a call back eventually. So many main characters started out almost as extras. So many random things that happen that make you wonder why they were filmed at all come back much later to be more important things. It's a show that rewards paying attention to detail, and I like that about it. It'd just be nice to see Frank have a setback from time to time. He's more invincible than Dexter, and that has started to get really old.
true. changed it to allow spoilers, when using the spoiler tags.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
ya, def agree with this. he can't seem to do wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
S2E9 Spoiler below:
Spoiler:nothing has made me more upset than freddy losing his franchise deal and business. guy is a badass.
I've finished S2 and frankly (ha!), it has holes, chief among them a shitty, unbelievable President and that FU's pr problems are seemingly not even a hindrance. S1 was better. S2 is nowhere near GOAT.
Well S1 was better primarily because Peter Russo is the only complex character that the entire show has produced.
I'm super cool with how the president is portrayed. He's Tusk's lackey. Like W Bush, President Walker got where he got by being usedQuote:
Originally Posted by BennyLaRue
Ep1 spoils. Where are the spoiler tags located? I had to manually type
Spoiler:Zoey death is best death ever. She was getting so stale and annoying. Her death kept the plot rolling and showed the brutality of Francis
On what strength would Americans have voted for Walker though? Bush was a lackey but he got in on charm and family connections. Walker don't have shit - zero charisma, get frozen on issues as small as what to have for lunch and how to hang his toilet paper roll.
Spoiler:Yeah, totally agree that Zoey's death was great timing. Shocking and pushes that arc on an important 90 degree turn, would have otherwise bogged down the Francis story
The show is just bad on political details. Here's an article explaining some http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...y_enemies.html
I am personally okay with the bad details because I think those can be acceptable in order to drive a narrative. It's partly for this reason that Walker's lackiness and mild charisma in some circumstances is enough for me to just say "sure thing". Another thing about Walker that may be a strength of the show is that the writers are probably aware that they cannot make an antagonist that's more sympathetic than the Underwoods. If they did too good of a job on a charismatic antagonist, I think it would make Francis' psychopathy look bad
Wait... Francis (and Claire's for that matter) psychopathy doesn't look bad? I mean... you not only sympathize with Francis, but you excuse his actions in the process?
Willing suspension of disbelief is a strange beast.
at least they know what they are. rather have them rule me than some religious fuck trying to save my soul
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences."
Bad like you don't want them to be protagonists, not bad like you don't think what they do is wrongQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
meh. posted in the wrong thread,... about the wrong show, lol. f4ck I need to get some sleep
Some more thoughts. Spoils up to and including finale. Everybody in this thread should have watched the entire show by now though...
Spoiler:Perhaps the problem of President Walker's lack of charisma exists because the writers couldn't figure out a better way to have Francis beat him. In sticking to believable realism, they almost have to make Walker a dolt, otherwise he would see through Francis' bullshit and shut everything down from the top.
I'm honestly surprised Francis got the presidency this early. I thought that was being saved for the series finale. I envisioned the final sequence being while Francis swears in on the Bible, he breaks the fourth wall again, looks at the camera, says something like "it has only begun", and then it goes to black. Now that he has the presidency, I feel like the drama may have peaked. Where can he go from here? There's no greater power he can usurp. The show can no longer be about a backstabbing politician grabbing power in a way that seems all too much like our own political reality. If the writers continue down that direction, it will just get more outlandish over time.
My guess is the third season will involve a lot of Milf House Speaker duking it out with Francis. The writers do have some semblance of the direction they're going. This can be seen in the Meecham stuff. He is clearly being prepped to tie deeply to the Underwoods and eventually do illegal things for them
In response to wuf's above post.
Spoiler:I think Francis is a mash up of Johnson and Nixon. Going with that read, I'd say the fun has only begun
I like that idea. A great writing team certainly can get it and more done
Prob not a spoiler just incoherent babbling
Spoiler:Part of me wishes that the show just ends in season 2. It will just get ridiculous. It's like super hero shows power escalation increases to the point of where you can't suspend your disbelief.
I can see them doing prequel. Or mother fucker takes over Canada and Mexico and lunches attack on China for world domination.
Spoiler:The only decent direction the show can go is to depict Underwood's decline IMO.
must say the only truly bad part of the show is getting rid of this chick. she's hot as fuuuu(high-pitched voice)uuuuck
http://content7.flixster.com/photo/1...094381_ori.jpg
finally finished, and yeah I agree with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
Spoiler:fucking doug, that last scene with rachel was a bit ridiculous.
Can we please end the spoilers tag use now? Anybody in this thread should know they have to watch the whole thing first.Quote:
Originally Posted by givememyleg
Anyways
Spoiler:I think the Doug scene was well done. The writers had built up his irrational fascination with her the entire season, and his reaction to getting hit really hard in the head to a point of delusion makes sense. Doug is like Overeem: hit him once and he forgets where he's at
Sick Overeem joke
Spoiler:
Who thinks Doug is dead?
agnesamurphy was pretty convinced he is... I wasn't convinced they wouldn't bring him back.
The spoiler tags are a pain. I just stopped opening the thread until I was finished with season 2.
EDIT:
Spoiler:I like wufwuggy's take on the scene where Doug gets clobbered... however, I find it hard to believe he wouldn't raise his arms to block his head when something's coming at it... more so if he's a bit delirious... I didn't like the scene, but there's a lot I don't like about this show.
Rachel marginally harder to sympathize with, but not really.
ok, updated main thread - spoilers can be free of tags now.
yes, doug is definitely dead. the last shot showed him face down in the morning with his eyes open.
ahh... I missed the eyes.Quote:
Originally Posted by givememyleg
Started watching this show on Sunday and just finished last night. Good stuff.
Some observations:
1. I, too, felt season 1 was much stronger than season 2. A lot of the problems some posters here have are valid. I think for me, the implausibility of the outcome of season 2 really bothered me, even though I suppose it was inevitable. I just cannot see such an active VP who also happens to be generally feared/despised by all surviving the takedown of a sitting POTUS. It's not like this was all done in secret either, as the House Whip and SoS had full knowledge of what he was doing.
2. In season 1 there were glimpses of the Underwood's humanity. In season 2 there are none. Seriously, who the fuck are these people? I think it is not so much that ANYONE can relate to them as much as we all find evil to be fascinating. And these aren't meth dealers or mobsters, they are public figures. Claire is a dedicated career woman running a NPO, a noble charity, who has not a shred of decency. She makes Queen Cersei look like a puppy. Frank Underwood is a Southern charmer, career politician who has zero friends, only pawns, confidants and enemies. What is his political platform? Does he have any belief system?
How is it that such people can attract such fanatical retainers as Stamper, Meechum and Grayson? Really, Grayson, gun-for-hire, chooses proximity to power over money?
3. Strength of the show is obviously the casting/acting. Just an amazing job by all. Wuf's observation on how well the show uses major character deaths is spot on. The Zoe-Frank relationship had run its course and needed to end. The Stamper-Rachel relationship needed resolution. I love Rachel Brosnahan, incidentally.
4. I originally thought that the show would be less interesting when Frank ascends the throne, but I've changed my mind. The machinations of an Underwood presidency could be fascinating, much the same way it would be amazing to see the behind-the-scenes drama of, say, the Nixon presidency.
I originally expected Frank's ascendancy to the throne to last many seasons, which would have allowed it to be more plausible. Given how quickly it happened, I don't think I could have written it any better
The type of thing I felt was exceptional above what I've seen from other shows is how they introduced Stamper's replacement. It started without showing that Stamper was going to be replaced and looked like another guy was being brought in to help. That guy was cool, but he turned out not to be the replacement because the real replacement later popped in and pwned his way through the fake replacement.
That's just good storytelling
The real replacement has a weird facial structure. Dude's eyes are not symmetric AT ALL.